U.S. federal appeals court freezes Biden's vaccine rule for companies

[JudyM]

Source: Reuters

A U.S. federal appeals court issued a stay Saturday freezing the Biden administration's efforts to require workers at U.S. companies with at least 100 employees be vaccinated against COVID-19 or be tested weekly, citing "grave statutory and constitutional" issues with the rule.

The ruling from the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit comes after numerous Republican-led states filed legal challenges against the new rule, which is set to take effect on Jan 4.
…
The action on the private-sector vaccinations was taken under the U.S. Occupational Safety and Health Administration's (OSHA) emergency authority over workplace safety, officials said. The rule applies to 84.2 million workers at 1.9 million private-sector employers, according to OSHA.

Saturday's court order came in response to a joint petition from several businesses, advocacy groups, and the states of Texas, Louisiana, Mississippi, South Carolina and Utah. The rule is also facing separate legal challenges before other courts. The two-page order directs the Biden administration to respond to the request for a permanent injunction against the rule by 5pm Monday.

Read more: https://www.reuters.com/world/us/us-federal-appeals-court-issues-stay-bidens-vaccine-rule-us-companies-2021-11-06/

[The Magistrate]

1. I Can't Recall Any Earlier Instance, Ma'am

When a lethal plague had an active political and judicial lobby smoothing its way to spread and kill a country's own citizenry.

[RKP5637]

3. Amazing, I just don't get it. Why they want to encourage of spread of a pandemic.

I'm convinced the US would never survive anything many times worse with this GOP mentality.

[COL Mustard]

38. The Virus Has More Rights And More Protection

Than many actual humans in Louisiana, of which I know there are many.

[CaliforniaPeggy]

2. That is truly unfortunate. This is a public health issue.

I wonder what the "grave statutory and constitutional" issues are.

And how do these issues override public health issues?

[FBaggins]

8. That's easy

Last edited Sat Nov 6, 2021, 03:55 PM - Edit history (1)

You are correct from a normal constitutional analysis framework. The right to bodily integrity almost certainly is beneath the government's interest in protecting public health if the federal government had the power to create such a mandate. But the federal government probably lacks the power to issue vaccine mandates in the first place. That would be a pretty substantial constitutional issue.

As for statutory? It's a pretty big stretch to make the laws that created OSHA support using their regulatory authority in this way. It isn't what it was designed for (much like the CDC being used to ban evictions)

For fun, we could speculate that Congress could legislate in this area under the Commerce Clause... but not only would that take a long time in court - we don't have the votes to pass such a law.

[CaliforniaPeggy]

10. Thanks for the explanation. That helps a lot. n/t

[JudyM]

13. OSHA rules have always been designed to ensure a safe and healthy workplace.

OSHA is authorized to issue emergency rules if doing so is “necessary to protect workers from grave danger.” Covid is a recognized serious health hazard whose spread can be significantly abated by worker vaccines, masks and testing. I don’t think it’s a stretch, I think repukes throw sand in our faces regardless of what we do.

[FBaggins]

17. The CDC had a similar rationale- yet failed

The “grave danger” implicitly has to arise from the occupation. OSHA can’t decide that there’s an obesity epidemic and mandate that companies require weight loss or termination. They can’t decide that there’s an AIDS epidemic and mandate no fraternization. Those dangers don’t arise from the workplace

Even we’re that not the case - OSHA itself could fall if we took it to include such a reading… because the federal government lacks police powers and therefore cannot delegate same to a regulatory body

[SouthernDem4ever]

34. on the obesity issue

OSHA has guidelines for weight limits for equipment operators, and companies force weight loss and fire people all the time for not conforming to that safety issue.

[Socal31]

35. Those aren't even remotely the same.

[FBaggins]

37. But that's exactly the point

There's something specific to that occupation that requires it. It isn't a general public health issue that affects everyone independent of the workplace.

As a more relevant example. OSHA issued lots of guidelines earlier in the pandemic related to masks wearing, distancing, ventilation, or handwashing stations. These were mandatory for hospitals and other healthcare facilities which were dealing with people infected with viruses were part of the job. In all other instances, the guidelines were merely advisory. This is because OSHA lacked any legal authority to regulate general public health.

[JudyM]

42. OSHA's General Duty clause is not specific to any occupation or industry.

[FBaggins]

44. Same problem as the CDC case

The CDC had a broad mandate. Too broad apparently

OSHA's General Duty clause is not specific to any occupation or industry.

But it is limited to occupational safety issues that are specific to occupational health/safety. Not general public health issues.

That's why states have issued all the mandates. They have police powers that the federal government lacks (and therefore cannot delegate to OSHA).

[JudyM]

46. Nope. It refers to health and safety in the workplace, not exclusively in the workplace.

[FBaggins]

48. Cite a case

You won't find one.

Or try actually responding to #37 above. Why didn't OSHA ever issue regulations re: COVID and masks/testing/distancing/etc. ??

[JudyM]

49. Ha! Can you cite a case that limits it? I'm looking at the plain language.

[FBaggins]

50. Dodging the question?

Once again - why didn't OSHA ever issue broad orders related to the pandemic and only guidelines?

The fact that they've never done something is, in fact, evidence that they can't. Asking someone to prove a negative is nonproductive. There can't be a court case telling them that they can't make broad public health mandates until they first try to issue one. Courts don't issue speculative rulings.

[JudyM]

51. I haven't looked into why they haven't done it prior. Maybe because Biden has only been in office

a relatively short time, and rule making is complex, and most folks were working from home?

Look, it’s silly to think that OSHA can regulate dust exposure but not Covid exposure.

[FBaggins]

53. "silly to think that OSHA can regulate dust exposure but not Covid exposure."

Except that they can't.

That is... they can't regulate dust exposure in general. If there's a volcano spreading ash across the entire country, any health-related mandates will come from the states. OSHA won't be able to require all employees across the country to wear special masks.

Where they can regulate dust exposure is in businesses where the job involves exposure to particulates (construction, paint shops, sandblasting, etc.

Where OSHA can (and has) regulated workplace exposure to viruses is in businesses that deal with viruses (e.g., medical facilities). This wasn't something that they just hadn't gotten around to with COVID. They did get around to it. They just limited the mandatory order to those businesses where they had the authority to do so.

[JudyM]

56. Employers have to provide potable drinking water under OSHA, and that's unrelated to the specific

work being done. I could go on but for now going to have to agree to disagree. If the 5th circuit weren’t politically compromised I’d say let that would be a fair determination but…

[James48]

68. Because

Because OSHA didn’t have the reliable scientific evidence to quantify the risks of not wearing a mask, with teams of data. And the Trump administration ordered them NOT to. Just look at the meat industry-

Exactly the opposite is true of vaccination. We now have loads of data proving the vaccines work, and that they save lives, and can quantify the lives saved.

OSHA will be successful.

[JudyM]

70. I agree. Unless there's some kind of arcane, minuscule administrative winch.

I really can’t see us losing on Constitutional grounds, but who knows.

[mahatmakanejeeves]

61. Guidance provides good ideas. "The employer should do this."

Standards and regulations are mandatory. "The employer shall ensure that ..."

Let's find that ETS for healthcare workers.

Emergency Temporary Standard COVID-19 Healthcare ETS

The ETS was officially filed in the Office of the Federal Register on June 17, 2021, and it became effective when it was published on June 21, 2021.

Find information on the COVID-19 Vaccination and Testing ETS or on Coronavirus Disease (COVID-19).

October Report

To assess the ongoing need for an Emergency Temporary Standard for healthcare and related industries, the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) has reviewed the latest guidance, science and data on COVID-19 and has consulted with the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) (through the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health) (NIOSH)). OSHA has determined that the requirements of the healthcare ETS released on June 10, 2021, remain necessary to address the grave danger of COVID-19 in healthcare. OSHA will continue to monitor and assess the need for changes in the healthcare ETS each month.

{snip a bunch of links}

[FBaggins]

88. Re: the ETS

Sorry to have missed this yesterday.

We should remember that OSHA doesn't have a strong track record of ETSs being upheld in court. In fact, until a few months ago, most assumed that OSHA had dropped plans to use ETS.

Their last use of this option was in 1983 and was related to asbestos. It failed in court. Attempts to use ETS for Benzene exposure a few years before that were also held up in court.

[mahatmakanejeeves]

92. OSHA's last use of an ETS was in 1983 ...

I'm clearing out my email inbox. I ran across this. It's related. It's also outdated.

OSHA may slam the door on some Covid reopenings

By SUSANNAH LUTHI and REBECCA RAINEY 03/11/2021 07:31 PM EST

{snip}

[FBaggins]

93. With good reason

They're used ETX eight times and had courts block them seven of those eight times.

[mahatmakanejeeves]

60. I think you mean limits on how much a crane can lift, which is a function of

how far extended the boom is and its angle relative to vertical. There are calculations to be made so that a lift can be safely accomplished.

Verify fall arrest systems for the plus-sized worker

September 1, 2006

OSHA standards refer to a 310-pound capacity limit on fall arrest products. What does this mean, and how does a person who weighs more than 310 pounds work safely at height?

Answered by Craig Firl, product manager for Capital Safety, Red Wing, MN.

{snip}

The standard capacity for fall arrest equipment established by OSHA (29 CFR 1926.502, 29 CFR 1910.66) is 310 pounds. The typical criteria and protocols (static and dynamic testing) established by OSHA supports this 310-pound limit.
Fall arrest equipment has to be able to handle the weight of the worker.

{snip}

Maybe you can point out the regulation on how much can workers can weigh.

Thanks.

[JudyM]

41. HIV is not commonly transmitted in the workplace, nor is obesity.

Covid is airborne and the risk drops dramatically with these precautions.

[FBaggins]

45. COVID transmission is not specific to any industry

That's the very problem. OSHA doesn't have regulatory authority over just anything that could happen at work. It has authority over safety/health issues that specifically relate to a given industry.

[ratchiweenie]

43. Let me see if I've got this right. According to these states, the government can't force you to get

a vaccination for the health and well being of the entire population of the country, but it can force you to carry a child to term even in the case of rape and incest and even if it is against the your health and well being because, well, just because they hate women. Is that about right?

[FBaggins]

47. Nope

I'm not aware of any federal law requiring anyone to carry a child. Are you?

And for the record - it isn't "the government". It's the federal government. States have had the power to require vaccination (or quarantine, etc.) for well over a century (really - for as long as vaccines and the states have both existed).

[JudyM]

72. Can we infer from your argument that *state* OSHAs could set such a mandate but federal OSHA can't?

[FBaggins]

73. If there is such a thing as a state OSHA - absolutely

That’s been clear for well over a century now (and is why the courts have quickly rejected all of the cases challenging state mandates)

[JudyM]

78. You might want to take a look at this for more info.

They typically operate under a very similar, if not identical, set of regs.
https://www.osha.gov/stateplans/

[FBaggins]

79. No problem with that at all - just like states implementing CDC guidance

If a state wants to take an OSHA recommendation and make it a requirement on something that states control… thats just how it should work.

Lots of smart states listened to CDC recommendations re: the pandemic and implemented them as state requirements. No need to invent things out of whole cloth when they have the expertise.

But states have police powers and the federal government does not. It’s that simple.

[James48]

67. I disagree.

OSHA was created for the safety of employees in the work place. After carefully reading the proposed rule, I’m fairly certain it will stand up in court. OSHA did a good job of evaluating the circumstances and coming up with an appropriate workplace rule. Good job.

[FBaggins]

4. No surprise - but just a temporary stay at this point

Probably will be tough to avoid a longer-term stay while waiting for a hearing... and (especially since it's the 5th) it will likely be blocked on the merits.

Hopefully, the issue is moot by the time there is a decision.

[bluestarone]

18. Just thinking here.

Could vaccinated worker sue the company, for not providing a safe work place by NOT mandating fellow workers to get vaccinated? (especially if he or she got Covid from the workplace)

[FBaggins]

20. Generally not

Not an area I'm all that familiar with, but I'm pretty sure that worker's comp laws limit such claims. They might have to pay you for time off and treatments... but no pain and suffering or more significant amounts.

[bluestarone]

30. Oh yea i forgot about the workmans comp laws

I'm sure you're right on the money here!

[Igel]

21. If you've taken certain chemicals you'll have impaired response times.

That means if you're operating heavy equipment or, say, driving, you're a risk to those around you.

Could an employee sue the company for not providing a safe work place by NOT mandating fellow workers to be regularly tested for drugs?

Or, if there are workplace shootings, not having metal detectors and random searches?

Could students or parents in a high school?

At some point the risk has to arise from the safety conditions at the site, not what people bring to the site.

Take, for example, one application of the OSHA emergency use authority. It was discovered that a workplace had asbestos exposure where none had been suspected. The company did not respond, and OSHA promulgated an emergency rule. Now, "emergency" isn't a Congressional emergency where they know it's going to happen for 12 months and then, when it happens, they postpone doing much about it for another 3. In this case the fibrous mineral was found to be present, within days the order was promulgated and in place. It didn't take two months to issue and then not have it take effect for two months.

[bluestarone]

31. Yea gets kinda messy, i'm sure.

Seems like the Companies have the upper hand most of the time. But i do understand.

[Socal31]

36. That rationale would get obliterated in a courtroom.

If you are still unsafe after taking an action, when around others who did not take that action, then that action does not make you safe.

[in2herbs]

5. It's from the 5th Cir. Needs no more explanation. nt

[Bev54]

7. Weren't they the same ones to let Texas do as they please?

[Tomconroy]

29. Yes.

[Lovie777]

6. Onward to US SC ....

meanwhile deaths and pre-existing COVID condition. There are approximately 1 million who can't work because of COVID pre-existing conditions.

[FBaggins]

9. Probably not

Not only is there not much of a case to make here (and the administration is acting as though they know it), but it will probably take the 5th circuit months before they make a final ruling. Hopefully (with new treatments coming out and more people vaccinated), the issue will be moot by the time it gets there.

[bucolic_frolic]

11. These courts are politicized

If 45 were still in charge they would rule the other way

[elleng]

12. '"GRAVE statutory and constitutional" issues with the rule.'

Someone is overstating.

[lagomorph777]

90. 5th circuit is happy to send thousands more to their GRAVES.

Corrupt evil Reptilian bastards.

[mahatmakanejeeves]

14. Jordan Barab was deputy assistant secretary of labor for OSHA in 2009-2017.

He was David Michael's sidekick. He can be counted on to take an activist stance on OSHA issues.

https://twitter.com/jbarab

Governors, business associations and unions react to #OSHA vaccine-or-test mandate. Some like it, some hate it. Some think it went to far, some not far enough.

Most important: Workers like it. And it will save lives.

Link to tweet

[PortTack]

15. They should appeal! SCOTUS refused to get involved when ME and NYC sued

Besides there is precedent

SCOTUS 1905: Jacobson vs Massachusetts
“The rights of the individual do not outweigh the rights of many when it comes to public health.”

[Igel]

22. The precedent applies to Putin as much as it does to OSHA.

It says that a state has the right to issue a mandate.

There is authority reserved to the states that the central government doesn't have.

Remember your basic civics from middle school or maybe high school social studies--the Constitution grants enumerated and implied rights, and all rights not granted are reserved to the states. (I know my kid got round 1 of civics in middle school, and is now taking government, where everything from the articles of Confederation through the Federalist papers, the Constitution's three articles, each individual amendment, significant court cases like Marbury through cases from the last 15 years ... are all covered in turn. I can only imagine how in-depth it is in a better state; this is Texas we're talking about.)

[FBaggins]

26. Unrelated

Those were state mandates and Jacobsen makes clear that states have that power.

Federal mandates are an entirely different animal

[Evolve Dammit]

16. I honestly don't know how we survive with this political divide. A pandemic is political and judges

are aligned (not all hopefully. It shakes the faith of our being able to get past this and have any kind of unity (common/ shared sacrifice ie. vax/ masks/etc.) And it's only one issue.

[ratchiweenie]

19. I agree. How can we survive when even our actual lives are political.

[Evolve Dammit]

23. I believe we are in unchartered territory. The propoganda (real fake news) has led millions.

[Evolve Dammit]

24. sorry; uncharted. Gotta use spell check!

[OneCrazyDiamond]

58. President Biden.

He shares so many of the same qualities as Former President Lincoln. I believe in him. He has the experience to reconnect Americans with ourselves. The bill that just passed, and the one coming up will give him the fuel to take off. Just you wait.

[LymphocyteLover]

25. FREEDUMB!!!

[totodeinhere]

27. This will probably be headed for the Supreme Court.

Who knows how that will turn out.

[JohnSJ]

28. No problem NOT freezing a woman's right to choose though until a decision could be made

[Hartpi978]

32. Republicans own the courts

McConnell (and Trump) have achieved their goal. it does not matter what Congress or the President tries to do. The matter will end up in the courts which have been totally stacked by the right.

We have to unstack the court.

[Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin]

33. Why does the GOP hate America?

[ananda]

39. How did it get to the Fifth Circuit?

That's the worst rightwing court in the country!

[FBaggins]

62. The same way that liberal causes get to the 9th

The opponents of (whatever) file the case there.

In truth though - there were lots of groups ready to sue in several circuits as soon as the policy was promulgated. The 5th was probably just the fastest to act. (Likely for the reason you assume)

But the administration knew this was coming. It’s why they delayed a formal move. They wanted as many businesses as possible to implement policies first.

It’s really exactly like the eviction moratorium. They knew it was unconstitutional, but also knew that a lot of good could be done while they waited fir the court to say so.

[mahatmakanejeeves]

66. Business groups ask White House to delay Biden Covid vaccine mandate until after the holidays

But the administration knew this was coming. It’s why they delayed a formal move. They wanted as many businesses as possible to implement policies first.

Fri Nov 5, 2021: Business groups ask White House to delay Biden Covid vaccine mandate until after the holidays

That doesn't seem like a big request.

BREAKING: Businesses have until after the holidays to implement Biden Covid vaccine mandate

Link to tweet

HEALTH AND SCIENCE

Business groups ask White House to delay Biden Covid vaccine mandate until after the holidays

PUBLISHED MON, OCT 25 2021 9:03 AM EDT | UPDATED MON, OCT 25 2021 3:54 PM EDT

Spencer Kimball
@SPENCEKIMBALL

KEY POINTS
• White House officials at the OMB are meeting with industry lobbyists as it conducts the final review of President Joe Biden’s Covid vaccine mandate.
• Business groups are asking the administration to wait until after the holiday shopping season to implement the rule.
• They say the mandate could exacerbate labor shortages and supply chain problems.

Worried that President Joe Biden’s Covid vaccine mandate for private companies could cause a mass exodus of employees, business groups are pleading with the White House to delay the rule until after the holiday season.

White House officials at the Office of Management and Budget held dozens of meetings with labor unions, industry lobbyists and private individuals last week as the administration conducts its final review of the mandate, which will require businesses with 100 or more employees to ensure they are vaccinated against Covid or tested weekly for the virus. It is estimated to cover roughly two-thirds of the private sector workforce.

OMB officials have several meetings lined up Monday and Tuesday with groups representing dentists, trucking companies, staffing companies and realtors, among others.

The American Trucking Associations, which will meet with the OMB on Tuesday, warned the administration last week that many drivers will likely quit rather than get vaccinated, further disrupting the national supply chain at time when the industry is already short 80,000 drivers.

The trucking association estimates companies covered by the mandate could lose 37% of drivers through retirements, resignations and workers switching to smaller companies not covered by the requirements.

{snip}

[msfiddlestix]

86. is that where Texas and the rest of the traitorous sections within the 5th circuit?

Wouldn't an appeal to a higher court be the next step?

[FBaggins]

87. The only higher court is SCOTUS

The 5th has to actually make a ruling before that can happen... and there isn't much hope of success (though perhaps more than in the 5th)

[msfiddlestix]

91. ✔️

[BlueIdaho]

40. Fucking crooked judges.

All that GQP money was well spent on their bent judges. 😡

[Duppers]

52. Going to overturn Smallpox vax requirements too?

[FBaggins]

63. What smallpox vax requirement?

The federal government doesn’t have one to overturn.

[madville]

69. Only thing I could think of would be the military

I got the smallpox vaccine years ago because it was required to deploy when I was in the military but it’s only effective for a few years so my immunity is long gone lol.

[FBaggins]

74. The federal government can absolutely control its employees

Of course with the military they also have the authority to put you in the line of fire.

And private businesses can also require it if their employees (now that they’re fully approved at least). But the feds can’t require the private businesses to do so (potentially with the exception of government contractors - but even that might have trouble with the current court)

[bikernks]

54. Long Time Reader (10+yrs),

First time commenter.

I cannot comprehend that on a political forum like this, people can't seem (or don't want) to differentiate between a state mandate and a Federal mandate. States have the authority given to them to issue mandates by the Constitution, whereas the Federal Government does not, and I think we should keep it that way. I guarantee that if TFG was having OSHA issue this mandate, people on this forum would be losing their collective shit, much the same as the right-wingers are now. I feel this mandate is going to cost us huge in the mid-terms, and damn well may cost us the Presidency. People on here seem to think that it's business as normal that we lost Virginia, but remember the last time Virginia flipped against us, we lost over 60 House seats and 6 Senate seats. If we stick to our guns on these mandates, we're going to lose at least that much.

I understand this is my second post, and will probably get pulled because many on here don't want to hear a different opinion, they only want to hear their opinion coming from my mouth. This mandate is going to get us creamed in the next election, JMHO.

[FBaggins]

55. One tweak

States don't have the authority given to them to issue mandates by the Constitution. What the federal Constitution did was state that

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

10th Amendent

The power to issue mandates is a "police power". The federal constitution really just says that the federal government has not been granted this power. In theory - that left it with "the people" - but in all 50 states, the people delegated that power to their state governments in the creation of their own state constitutions.

[orangecrush]

57. So the number of people who die as a result of this stupidity

Is less important?

And I have no problem with a dissenting opinion expressed respectfully.

[littlemissmartypants]

59. As long as you don't violate the TOS I'm pretty sure it's safe to express your opinion.

Welcome to DU.

[SouthernDem4ever]

64. So the takeaway is we live with a lot of stupid people who will take over our Govt again

Makes all other points pretty moot doesn't it?

[bullwinkle428]

65. Americans favor the federal vaccine mandates by a roughly 60-40 margin.

WASHINGTON, D.C. -- Americans generally approve of President Joe Biden's Sept. 9 plan mandating that millions of U.S. workers be vaccinated against COVID-19. Roughly six in 10 U.S. adults are in favor of those requirements for federal government workers, employees of large companies, and workers at hospitals that receive federal healthcare funds. There is greater support, 68%, for requiring companies to give employees paid time off to get vaccinated or to recover from vaccine side effects.

https://news.gallup.com/poll/354983/majority-supports-biden-covid-vaccine-mandates.aspx

[FBaggins]

75. So?

Courts can’t rule based on whether or not they approve of a particular decision… they certainly can’t rule based on a popularity poll.

There’s no question that almost everyone should get vaccinated. The question is whether the federal government can require it.

[Devil Child]

76. Welcome to DU bikernks

Thanks for your thoughtful post.

[lagomorph777]

89. What got us creamed was the ongoing pandemic and its consequences.

Stopping the pandemic is the only way out.

Playing GOP-lite will not.

[Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin]

77. White House chief of staff 'confident' Biden's COVID-19 vaccine mandate will be upheld after federal

appeals court halted it

White House Chief of Staff Ronald Klain on Sunday said he expected that President Joe Biden's federal COVID-19 vaccine mandate for businesses would ultimately be upheld after it was temporarily blocked by a federal appeals court.

"I think what it means, for the time being, is that the effectiveness of that vaccine requirement is frozen," Klain said Sunday during an appearance on NBC News' "Meet the Press" when asked about the stay.

As Insider reported Saturday, the three judge panel temporarily blocked the mandate, which would require businesses with at least 100 employees to require COVID-19 vaccinations or weekly testing.

The New Orleans-based US Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit said there were potentially "grave statutory and constitutional" issues at play with the requirement, which is scheduled to go into effect on January 4. As Insider previously reported, most states have sued the Biden administration to stop it.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/white-house-chief-of-staff-confident-biden-s-covid-19-vaccine-mandate-will-be-upheld-after-federal-appeals-court-halted-it/ar-AAQqhy0

[FBaggins]

80. We'll find out pretty quickly

Last edited Mon Nov 8, 2021, 06:59 AM - Edit history (1)

They’re requiring the government to respond to the motion by tomorrow afternoon and then a response to that response by the next day. Sounds like they’ll act pretty quickly to either remove the stay or extend it.

I doubt that there are many liberal judges who will rule for OSHA other than to extend the process, but this panel is two Trump appointees and one Reagan selection and the full 5th circuit is as conservative as they come.

[Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin]

81. Biden Administration Is 'Prepared to Defend' Vaccine Rules, Surgeon General Said

The Biden administration is “prepared to defend” sweeping new coronavirus vaccine rules for large companies amid new legal challenges, Dr. Vivek Murthy, the surgeon general, said on Sunday.

The administration last week set Jan. 4 as the deadline for companies with 100 or more employees to mandate Covid vaccinations or implement weekly testing of workers. The mandate would allow for medical or religious exemptions, and companies that fail to comply may be fined.

“The president and the administration wouldn’t have put these requirements in place if they didn’t think that they were appropriate and necessary,” Dr. Murthy said on ABC’s “This Week.”

Dr. Murthy pointed to the nation’s history as precedent: George Washington required troops to be inoculated against smallpox in 1777.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/biden-administration-is-prepared-to-defend-vaccine-rules-surgeon-general-said/ar-AAQqiwV

[LetMyPeopleVote]

82. From Prof. Tribe

Link to tweet

[MichMan]

84. Wasn't Tribe the one who advised the President that the CDC Eviction moratorium was constitutional ?

[orangecrush]

83. Death cult.

[msfiddlestix]

85. hmm..

no words that I can say out loud.